Eon Prepayment meter - Want to switch to a credit meter - help!

MartinPC_2

SwanJon,

My posting of my experience on this thread is to assist others faced with a similar situation and, just to clarify, not to brag or boast, indeed it was my searching for such information that brought me to this forum in the first instance.

30 years ago I worked for, and personally knew and would have a banter with, the late and great, Sir Freddie Laker, perhaps his most famous three words, when referring to a British national flag carrier airline, were "Sue The B@stards" ..... I loved that guy

Back to this scenario Eon decided, apparently on 03 July 2008, that I would become responsible for a £50 charge, well common sense, indeed common courtesy, dictates that it would have been nice, indeed expected, for Eon to inform me of this some two years ago, it is absolutely crazy that they demand these monies from an innocent third party even when the debtor is prepared to discuss the removal of the meter with Eon.

Eon could have seen common sense, even if the meter removal costs them £50 they have made more than £50 over the years of it's installation from the overpriced electricity, a check on a price comparison site indicates that I am overpaying circa £150 a year for electicity, this meter has been present for 5 years! Eon could have billed my tenant for the £50 charge, they flatly refused to consider either and, now, the removal of the meter is costing Eon £114.20 and they've got off lightly.

Whilst it cost me £50 to get it to court, £50 that I or anyone risks forfeiting, I can only recommend to others to consider those three words of my ex boss, I believe this is called 'consumer rights' whereas we stand up and say "No, we're not accepting your sh*t" and if enough consumers act appropriately these utility companies should come to realise "Houston, We Have A Problem"!

SwanJon

MartinPC wrote: »

Back to this scenario Eon decided, apparently on 03 July 2008, that I would become responsible for a £50 charge, well common sense, indeed common courtesy, dictates that it would have been nice, indeed expected, for Eon to inform me of this some two years ago,

They had no contractual obligation to you two years ago - you were not responsible for the bills, you do not own the meter. Why should they hunt you down to ask permission to recover debt, or even withdraw credit from someone else?

MartinPC wrote: »

it is absolutely crazy that they demand these monies from an innocent third party even when the debtor is prepared to discuss the removal of the meter with Eon.

There was no demand. There was a cost associated with a job.

MartinPC wrote: »

Eon could have seen common sense, even if the meter removal costs them £50 they have made more than £50 over the years of it's installation from the overpriced electricity, a check on a price comparison site indicates that I am overpaying circa £150 a year for electicity, this meter has been present for 5 years! Eon could have billed my tenant for the £50 charge, they flatly refused to consider either and, now, the removal of the meter is costing Eon £114.20 and they've got off lightly.

The overpaying argument is a weak one, unless you have evidence? There have been plenty of occasions where suppliers have mentioned the higher cost to serve prepayment customers. For example, I bet that your tenant wasn't paying interest on his debt was he? Every other Eon customer was subsidising his debt, and now they are subsidising your case. It sounds like you would like them to subsidise every meter exhange - just beacuse the customer wants it changed.
This is a commercial decision, and different suppliers do it differently - for their own commercial reasons.

Eon couldn't bill your tenant as it was you asking for the work to be done. You could have billed your tenant for costs to return the house to the original state.

I would be very suprised if a judge put any significant weight on a post in a thread. For all he knew you could have just created another username and written that yourself - a bit of a risky judgement. Eon didn't show you say....

MartinPC_2

SwanJon,

I have become informed that there are employees of Eon posting in this thread, other than those that identify themselves as such, and I am of the opinion, based on your history of posts in this thread, that you are also an employee of Eon and a (famous) search engine search of 'SwanJon Eon' serves to clarify this!

SwanJon

Wow, what fantastic investigative skills. How have you "become informed"?
What a suprise that a search based on my username and an energy supplier brings up threads from this forum where I have posted about that supplier.

Off and do your research properly.

MartinPC_2

Admittedly, having just checked, a search of 'SwanJon EDF' brings up similar results however, having just browsed those results, there is a trait whereas you always appear to be defending the utility company rather than the consumer, I would ask you to care to prove me wrong but you're distracting this forum from it's purpose and I'm not going to respond to your nonsense any further.

And I became informed that there are 'stealth' Eon employee(s) posting in this thread because one such employee PM'd me and told me so!

Amen

mattcanary

Maybe EON will now feel they have to change their policy on removing prepayment meters. It would be about time!

They say ro a new tenant that they may be able to have a prepayment meter removed after living in the property for a year. I am very doubtful that happends - how can anyone build up a credit record with EON when they pay as you go through a prepayment meter?!!

SwanJon

Martin, sorry you feel my posts are nonsense, and I'll admit that I do play devil's advocate.
Where you feel I am defending the utility company, I feel I am defending other customers of the utility company.
It's amusing that you thought I was a 'stealth' employee - I am an employee of a utility company and try to remember to mention it where it is relevant (by the way 2 down, 4 to go). I try to use my knowledge to help and advise people on here, but there is no point building up false hope.
You obvioulsy feel that the purpose of this forum is for you to get what you want and ignore the consequences, others feel that the forum should look at the wider picture and look for the best deal for everyone.
Enjoy your win.

MartinPC_2

SwanJon wrote: »

They had no contractual obligation to you two years ago - you were not responsible for the bills, you do not own the meter. Why should they hunt you down to ask permission to recover debt, or even withdraw credit from someone else?


There was no demand. There was a cost associated with a job.


The overpaying argument is a weak one, unless you have evidence? There have been plenty of occasions where suppliers have mentioned the higher cost to serve prepayment customers. For example, I bet that your tenant wasn't paying interest on his debt was he? Every other Eon customer was subsidising his debt, and now they are subsidising your case. It sounds like you would like them to subsidise every meter exhange - just beacuse the customer wants it changed.
This is a commercial decision, and different suppliers do it differently - for their own commercial reasons.

Eon couldn't bill your tenant as it was you asking for the work to be done. You could have billed your tenant for costs to return the house to the original state.

I would be very suprised if a judge put any significant weight on a post in a thread. For all he knew you could have just created another username and written that yourself - a bit of a risky judgement. Eon didn't show you say....

SwanJon,

Eon could have billed my tenant for the meter change because it was my tenant, weeks before vacating, that requested it. Eon told her, words to the effect, that they needed to hear from me, I presumed that they needed my statement to confirm that she was vacating, however when I contacted Eon that is when all this nonsense kicked off, that they were demanding the £50 from me and not my tenant!

You seem to have gone somewhat out of your way to criticize me at every opportuinty, were you in the court yesterday? So how can you voice any educated surprise at what took place in that court yesterday?

In court I came across as an honest person, as I am, having previously been misinformed by Scottish Power, during April, I had been claiming £125 for the meter change, in court yesterday I volunteered the information that the actual cost, to me, is £60 for the change, furthermore I was very precise with my travelling expenses, i.e. £2.10 each way on the bus, I could have taken my car and claimed 40p per mile plus car parking etc. but, no, I was being honest!

And there are easy enough ways to check if I am deceiving this forum, indeed the court, posting under different identitities, site administrators can easily check IP address/location's of posts.

Like I've said, you're criticizing me with your nonsensical argument at every opportunity and indeed you're disrupting the thread, disrupting the forum.

davidgmmafan

I understand prepayment meters have not always existed, but equally there must be some reason why elderly persons I speak to are very wary of being cut off even for a very small oversight?

Perhaps in the past disconnections was swifter?

Prepayment meters, despite thier limitations, are a reasonable alternative in some circumstances. For example if a customer has defaulted numerous times on payment plans what would be the point of setting up another?

I am by no means certain but when I had a quick look online I got the impression you could be disconnected for non-payment after something like 30 days. If anyone knows the genuine timescale I'd be interested to know it.

In this case common sense prevailed, and E.On should've applied some. However I can imagine situations where prepayment is not unreasonable on the part of the utility company. Some customers even like prepayment as they can keep track of thier usage, Direct Debit has its own pitfalls!

MartinPC_2

davidgmmafan wrote: »

I understand prepayment meters have not always existed, but equally there must be some reason why elderly persons I speak to are very wary of being cut off even for a very small oversight?

Perhaps in the past disconnections was swifter?

Prepayment meters, despite thier limitations, are a reasonable alternative in some circumstances. For example if a customer has defaulted numerous times on payment plans what would be the point of setting up another?

I am by no means certain but when I had a quick look online I got the impression you could be disconnected for non-payment after something like 30 days. If anyone knows the genuine timescale I'd be interested to know it.

In this case common sense prevailed, and E.On should've applied some. However I can imagine situations where prepayment is not unreasonable on the part of the utility company. Some customers even like prepayment as they can keep track of thier usage, Direct Debit has its own pitfalls!

David,

I agree that in some situations PPM's may not be unreasonable but let's take the post of 'techra' (on page 3 of this thread) as an example. techra, by his post, had lost his job, it sounds like he had a good payment history, indeed he had been £300 in credit, losing one's job is, hopefully, a temporary situation of difficulty and, let's face it, a debt of £120 is equivalent to a couple of nights out!

But, it seems, straight away Eon were pushing for a PPM to be installed and Eon were lying to him because once installed they were, by their policy, never going to remove it whilst techra remains the account holder.

In Eon's written defence to the court they submitted their policy regarding PPM removal requests from customers who are not moving house, in this case this policy was totally irrelevant because Eon's customer was moving house, and I'm hazarding a guess that Eon have no policy, it's not something they do, to remove a PPM if the customer is moving house and this has to be considered a flawed policy.

Nobody should ever become disconnected for a small oversight, they should receive a minimum of one, indeed more than one, 'red' bills before any further action is taken thus it would take a few oversights, indeed ignoring of bills, before any further action may be considered.